I respect science. It can guide us through otherwise daunting challenges as well as helping us to understand what has often seemed inexplicable to previous generations.

Of course, it also provides us with new technologies that help improve our lives. But every so often I read something in a science journal that irks me because it makes generalizations based on information.

Such is the case with a recent article on Scitechdaily.com, which cited research by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. According to the findings, “beer drinkers tend to have lower-quality diets, engage in less physical activity, and are more likely to smoke cigarettes compared to those who consume wine, liquor, or a combination of alcoholic beverages.”

OK, I’m guessing that statement fits with the general perception of beer drinkers by a lot of folks. Beer is seen as a blue-collar, working-class beverage swilled by the hoi polloi, whereas wine and cocktails are viewed more as “sophisticated” drinks, sipped elegantly in the upper echelons of society.

But now just hold on for one pop-toppin’ second: I have two issues with the article. First, “beer drinkers” are certainly not a solid monolithic group, and second, there’s a reason why beer drinkers in general would have poorer diets – and there might be correlation, but the beverage itself is not causative.

Let’s look at “beer drinkers” first: Beer in general is much cheaper than wine (and a lot of spirits). Not craft beer, but overall, so drinkers of cheaper beer are probably going to be lower-income folks, who (according to research) also tend to buy cheaper food (like fast food) and are more likely to smoke. The beer market is still largely (87%) made up of large industrial bands, which include the cheaper beers. So yes, a lot of beer drinkers are probably in somewhat lower economic and social classes than imbibers of the other alcohols.

But I would argue that craft beer drinkers are not so easily pigeonholed. Craft beer is certainly not inexpensive, especially these days. I’m guessing that craft beer drinkers are a heterogeneous group who certainly have diets that run from disastrous (me) to super-healthy. And although my observations are anecdotal, I also have to say I rarely see anyone strolling outside for a cigarette at craft beer breweries and pubs.

To me, craft beer drinkers are not that different from wine aficionados.

As far as the second point: Let’s just look at drinkers of non-craft beer. Plenty of these folks just like to grab a six-pack or case of a more inexpensive brand. Why? Because life is expensive and these people don’t have the available cash to spend $15 on a four-pack of canned craft beer. Plus they grew up on whatever brand their parents or older siblings drank.

You can get a 30-pack of Miller Lite for $27. That’s the same as two four-packs of many craft beers. (Yes, the craft beer cans are 16-ounces while Lite cans are 12, but the total ounce comparison is 360 ounces of Lite to 128 of craft beer.)

So, drinkers of the cheaper industrial brands are probably poorer, and as other sociological studies have shown, probably have less healthy habits in other areas of their lives. That means the (cheap) beer factor is correlated but doesn’t cause the poor health.

I don’t think any alcoholic beverage is healthier than others. They’re all alcohol, which is a poison.

And the study pointed out that none of the alcohol-using groups even sniffed at reaching a score of 80, which is considered an adequate diet on the 100-point healthy eating index. Although beer drinkers scored lowest at 49, liquor-only drinkers (and combination drinkers) only scored 53, with wine drinkers not really distinguishing themselves much at 55.